æ ORIGINAL ARTICLE æ

Defining ‘open throat’ through content analysis of

experts’ pedagogical practices
Helen F. Mitchell, Dianna T. Kenny, Maree Ryan and Pamela J. Davis
From the Australian Centre for Applied Research in Music Performance (ACARMP), Sydney Conservatorium of Music,
The University of Sydney, New South Wales 2006, Australia

Received 21 October 2002. Accepted 4 September 2003.

Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 2003; 28: 167
/180

‘Open throat’ is a term regularly used in the singing studio, but agreement across pedagogues as to its definition and function
has not yet been assessed. Fifteen expert singing pedagogues participated in a qualitative study involving a semi-structured
interview to explore current thinking regarding terminology, pedagogy, sound quality and the perceived physiology to achieve
open throat, as used in the singing studio. Most teachers included the use of the technique as a fundamental in singing
training, and were positive about the sound quality it achieved, especially in classical singing. The purpose of the technique
was described as a way of maximizing pharyngeal space and/or achieving abduction of the ventricular folds.
Key words: associated physiology, singing pedagogy, sound quality descriptors, terminology.

Helen F. Mitchell, Australian Centre for Applied Research in Music Performance (ACARMP), The Conservatorium of Music,
University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia. Tel.: /61 2 9351 1386. Fax: /61 2 9351 9540. E-mail: d.kenny@conmusic.usyd.
edu.au

INTRODUCTION technique in good singing, or the lack of awareness as

Historically, teaching and evaluating singing has been
guided by an oral tradition in which pedagogical
techniques are handed down from one generation of
singing teachers to the next. The oral tradition, with
its accompanying musical terminology, particularly
that used to describe performance quality, can be
confusing and indeed mystifying for those who use
and practise it (1).
Many of the terms used to describe ‘openness’,
‘space’ or ‘freedom’ as a characteristic of the singing
voice have been used inconsistently, and terminology
associated with sound quality among expert singing
pedagogues is diverse and idiosyncratic. Seashore
recommended that ‘musicians scrap a mass of the
current synonyms for tone quality, because these
words do not connote any demonstrable differences
in content. The diversity of words simply adds to the
confusion’ (2, p. 111). There is, and has always been a
recognition of an overall good sound and of its
components (3), but in this case of openness there is
need for clarification, especially in the area of profes-
sional classical singing.
Poor singing has been described as sound ‘getting
stuck’ in the throat (4). Awareness of the throat as a
an explanation for bad singing, has appeared through-
out the singing pedagogy literature. It is believed that
sound should flow freely, with nothing impeding it,
like a ‘chimney’ for air (5), or an unobstructed passage
for a sound beam (6). Failure to achieve this free flow
has been perceived to have serious consequences for
the singer and the sound. ‘If the scholar should have
any defects, of the nose, the throat, or of the ear, let
him never sing but when the master is by, or somebody
that understands the profession in order to correct
him, otherwise he will get an ill habit, past all remedy’
(7, p. 187).
Concepts relating to open throat can be traced
throughout pedagogical and scientific singing litera-
ture. Vennard defines open throat as the ‘condition
agreed upon by most voice teachers as desirable for
resonance’ (8, p. 252). That is, the use of open throat
makes a fundamental difference to vocal quality. Titze
(9) and Titze and Story (10) described a ‘wide
pharynx’ as an acoustic enhancement to the first
formant and to the overall sound. The difference to
the sound has been described as rounder, larger (11),
free (12), pure (13), rich, warm (14), and concentrated
energy (15).

# 2003 Taylor & Francis. ISSN 1401-5439 Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 28

DOI: 10.1080/14015430310018856
168 H. F. Mitchell et al.
At least two views of open throat have been
propagated in the pedagogical literature: the first
focuses on the action at laryngeal level (16), and the
other emphasizes pharyngeal involvement, at a level
extending to the soft palate or velum (6, 8). These
differing perspectives regarding the vocal mechanism
required to achieve open throat have inevitably
resulted in different teaching strategies and terminol-
ogy. Examples include actions involved in inhalation,
the surprise breath and smelling the rose (5, 17, 18).
Visualization of space within the throat, through an
‘air ball’ or ‘soap bubble’ (6, 19), and various other
configurations to alter the shape of the pharynx are
common throughout the literature. The lowered lar-
ynx, often along with widening of the oropharynx, is
also associated with open throat (6, 20, 21). Yawn is
both advocated (15, 21
/3), and also seen as poten-
tially distorting to the sound if extended too far by
creating tension and imbalance (24, p. 81). Forms of
laughing as a technique to achieve an open throat were
advocated in the late twentieth century (16, 24). Estill
(16) and Citardi et al . (25) advocate a method
involving retraction of the false vocal folds or abduc-
tion of the ventricular folds away from the midline.
Current pedagogical thought and teaching recom-
mend the use of more than one term to define the
relative openness of the pharynx and adjacent struc-
tures. Open throat and retraction are recognized in the
literature (16, 24) as well as in teaching, and a wealth
of other equivalents exist, such as throat widening,
space, or space at the back. From this point on, open
throat will be used as a generic term for all terminol-
ogy and technique descriptors.
Wapnick and Ekholm (26) advocated consistency in
the use of common terminology across singing peda-
gogues. They initiated links in the discovery and
application of terminology, perceptual judgment and
acoustic evaluation. Ekholm et al . (27) found striking
connections were made across judges when one sound
quality appeared dependent on another [resonance/
ring and clarity/focus (.94) and colour/warmth with
appropriate vibrato (.93)]. The methodology in this
study builds on these works by linking the study of a
technique with its consequent sound quality, to
ascertain the relationship between the desired sound
quality and the technique used to achieve it. This
study sought to determine agreement, links and
interdependency of descriptors on technique and
perceptual qualities in describing technique in singing.
The focus of the study is on terminology and
techniques of teaching open throat as practised by
experienced singing pedagogues. In particular, we were
interested in the perceived role of open throat in
classical singing, and whether open throat was thought
to improve the overall sound quality.
Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 28
METHODS
Participants
Participants were 15 experienced singing teachers with
established singing studios. All participants were
known to the researchers via affiliations with key
music centres in Australia and were personally invited
to participate by one of the authors. Selection criteria
for inclusion in the study were based on reputation
within the singing profession, determined by renown
or prominence according to the calibre of the students
in the singing studio. Specifically, the participants:
1. taught singing at tertiary level in universities or
conservatoria;
2. had a successful private studio, defined as one
comprising of students who performed and audi-
tioned at a big city or national level for positions
in opera companies, music theatre or professional
musical ensembles;
3. worked primarily in Australia or the United
Kingdom;
4. represented the range of current singing pedago-
gies in their teaching methods (investigators aimed
specifically to include both exponents and critics
of the Estill (16) method);
5. have had, or continue to have, a successful career
as a professional solo singer.
Participants were sent information about the project
and were invited to undertake a taped, semi-structured
interview regarding current vocal pedagogy, in parti-
cular, the terminology used by singing pedagogues to
explain singing techniques to their students. Ethical
approval to conduct the study was obtained from The
University of Sydney Ethics Committee. All the inter-
views were conducted by the first author, and only the
first author was aware of the identity of participants.
Instruments
Questionnaire. Each participant completed a brief
questionnaire giving details of their teaching
experience and current singing students. The ques-
tionnaire was divided into three sections: demographic
information, influences on singing pedagogy and
characteristics of their singing studio. Participants
were asked for information related to: age, profes-
sional education, number of years of teaching experi-
ence and proportion of time spent teaching or singing
professionally. They were also asked to name people
with whom they had studied, and workshops or
masterclasses they had attended that had influenced
their teaching. Finally, pedagogues were asked to
classify themselves according to the level at which

their students performed. Pedagogues were asked
to use the Bunch and Chapman taxonomy (28) to
estimate the percentage of their students in each
category (superstar, international, national/big city,
regional/touring, local community, singing teachers,
full-time students of singing, amateur, child) and in
the primary genres (opera, contemporary music thea-
tre, musical theatre, concert/oratorio/recital).
Semi-structured interview. A semi-structured inter-
view was developed to assess the beliefs and attitudes
of singing teachers related to open throat (29). This
method of data collection is described by Smith (30).
It was considered appropriate to the goals of the
current study because it ‘facilitates rapport/empathy,
allows a greater flexibility of coverage, enables the
interview to enter novel areas, and tends to produce
richer data’ (30, p. 12).
The interview schedule opened with general ques-
tions about the teaching of singing, for example, ‘How
do you achieve a good sound in singing?’ and ‘How do
you correct a problematic sound?’ No direct questions
on open throat were asked but the topic was discussed
in depth once the pedagogue initiated discussion.
Reference to a key term or to an associated term,
such as open throat, throat widening, retraction or
space at the back, provided the impetus to begin a
discussion of open throat. If the pedagogue did not
mention open throat during the interview, the inter-
viewer asked the question, ‘What do terms like open
throat, throat widening, retraction and space at the
back mean to you?’
The interview schedule focused on elucidating
pedagogues’ view of open throat, using categories
and terminology derived from the literature. These
were:
1. Relationships between the four most commonly
used terms: open throat, throat widening, retrac-
tion and space at the back
2. Preferred term/terms
3. Sound qualities associated with these terms
4. Required technique to achieve the sound quality
5. Relationships between terms, actions and sound
qualities
6. Physical sensations and presumed physiology
associated with the terminology
Procedure
The interview was pilot tested on an experienced
singing pedagogue and modifications were made
to increase the clarity of the questions where necessary.
The interview schedule was used as a guide; specific
open-ended questions were followed by individualized
prompts and probes (30). A lexicon of interview
Defining open throat 169
prompts was used to facilitate the flow of ideas
in the interview, although care was taken not
to interrupt the participant (31). Participants were
encouraged to elaborate on ideas through the use
of agreement prompts from the interviewer. The
interviewer used clarifying prompts to refine partici-
pants’ statements as necessary. Researcher agreement
was established regarding the appropriate use
of prompts during the interview prior to commence-
ment.
Interviews were conducted either in person (N /4)
or by phone (N /11) at a time and place convenient
to the participant, and permission to record the
interviews was obtained before proceeding. Tapes
were marked by participant number and transcribed
with transcriptions sent back to respondents for
verification and final approval before they were
qualitatively analysed. At this stage, participants
were given the opportunity to clarify anything that
they had said.
Analysis
Transcripts were analysed using in-depth qualitative
analysis, detailed in Smith (30) to identify relation-
ships between terminology, theory and teaching prac-
tice for each pedagogue (32). Transcripts were read in
depth to generate a profile of the topic responses. They
were then similarly coded and common themes were
identified. Significant or representative statements
were highlighted and collated across participants.
Recurrent themes were examined for inter-subject
similarities and differences. For example, mentions of
new terms were compared across pedagogues with
regard to term used, sound quality achieved and
technique applied. This type of qualitative data
collection and analysis has been used extensively in
research of singing evaluation and assessment (33, 34).
A coding scheme for the transcripts was developed.
Three of the four authors reviewed the codes and
independently selected exemplars of each code. This
type of interpretative analysis is described by Smith
(30) as a way of capturing the meaning of a partici-
pant’s responses.
These qualitative data form the basis of the results
presented below. Participants’ responses to the ques-
tion topics are grouped thematically in Results, in
accordance with the stated aims of the semi-structured
interview topics. The quotes were examined by an
expert pedagogue, within the context of the transcript,
to ensure they represented instances of the stated
theme, or illustrated a significant statement unique to
an individual or sub group.
Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 28
170 H. F. Mitchell et al.
RESULTS
Participants
The 15 singing pedagogues interviewed for the study
were aged between 39 and 63 years, with an average
age of 49. Ten primarily taught in Australia and five
taught in the UK. They dedicated an average of 95%
of their professional life to singing or the teaching of
singing. They had between 4 and 28 years of
experience in teaching singing, with an average of 20
years.
For nine participants (P1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12), an
average of 67% of their students performed in the top
four categories (superstar, international, national/big
city, regional/touring) of the Bunch and Chapman
taxonomy (28). Participants’ studios contained an
average of 20% full-time singing students, and for six
participants (P1, 4, 5, 8, 13, 14), ]/50% of their studio
comprised full-time students at a tertiary institution.
Influences
Table 1a and Table 1b present data in response to the
two questions ‘Do you follow any particular school of
thought or pedagogy or scientific approach?’ and
‘How does that pedagogy or writer influence your
view on open throat, throat widening, retraction or
space at the back?’ respectively. From the table, it can
be seen that the major influences were divided equally
between Estill (7 participants), Richard Miller (7
participants) and Janice Chapman (5 participants).
Seven participants also referred to their own experi-
ence or study as influential on their pedagogy.
Participants who cited experience as their key
influence made comments of the following type: ‘I
got to the point in my development where I just had to
know what those things meant for me personally, so I
think it was a lot of my own exploration that brought
about a deeper level of understanding’ (P15).
Table 1a. Pedagogues most regularly cited as influential in the development of teaching techniques for singing
Influence Chapman Estill
Pedagogues 1, 4, 7, 9, 15 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15
% 33 67
Table 1b. Pedagogical influences of singing teachers with respect to open throat techniques
Influence Estill Miller
Pedagogues 1, 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13 1, 4, 6, 8, 10, 11, 14 1, 2, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, 15 2, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15 11, 14
% 60 47
Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 28
Factors in the achievement of good sound
In response to the questions ‘How do you achieve a
good sound in singing?’ and ‘How might you correct a
problematic sound in singing?’ 50% of participants
offered an average of four key concepts that they
considered essential to good sound (range 1
/6 terms).
Good breathing was the most important factor for ten
participants (67%) followed by balance or coordina-
tion for eight (53%). Table 2a presents all the factors
cited by participants and the frequency of citation,
and Table 2b presents references to open throat.
Samples of typical comments on good sound are:
‘A good sound really relies so much on freedom and
good coordination and connection with air so that the
right muscles are engaged with the right amount of
energy and there’s no interference’ (P8). ‘I would aim
to establish a freedom of production, so that is looking
at breath, de-constriction, a free flow, a free pathway
for the sound’ (P9). ‘I’m looking for a looseness
around the neck and for the articulators to be loose so
that there’s no musculature resistance to the emission
of sound. I’m looking for something that old peda-
gogy would call space making’ (P15).
Five teachers referred to the subjective nature of its
definition. Specifically, a good sound ‘is a sound that
is non-abusive and appropriate to genre’ (P7); ‘is
subjective to people’s tastes, so I work towards making
sure that the sound is safe, and then I work on the
aesthetics of the sound’ (P12); ‘needs good aural
awareness and good aesthetic training’ (P4).
Of the eleven participants, three referred to specific
technical instructions to achieve a good sound. They
emphasized specific components of their pedagogical
approach and named the phenomenon of open throat
technique: ‘Well the first thing I work on is posture,
and the second thing I work on is breathing and the
third thing I work on is resonance . . . and the most
important thing about resonance is the open throat’
(P1); ‘I teach all my clients to retract, that’s one of the
Miller
2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 13, 15
47
Self/eclectic Chapman Caesari Other
4, 11
60 40 13 13
 Defining open throat 171

Table 2a. General factors necessary to achieve a good Nine participants (P1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 11, 12, 14) agreed
sound, ranked by pedagogue frequency of citation that the terms were either interrelated or interchange-
able, through universal use in singing studios. How-
Factors % ever, each participant went on to define more specific
Breathing 67
differences between terms and chose one or more that
Balance/coordination 53 they advocated in teaching: ‘Well, they do [mean the
Posture 40 same thing]. If you’re talking about open throat,
Support 20 everybody knows what you mean */it’s a generally
Energy 13 accepted term’ (P5).
Primal sound 13
Resonance 13
Three preferred the term open throat (P5, 6, 14) and
Tongue 13 consistently used the term throughout the interview.
Airflow 7 Five (P1, 3, 7, 11, 12) of the nine interpreted all
Aural awareness 7 terms as attempts to describe the action of retraction:
Effort 7 ‘All of those [terms] to me mean that the false folds are
Placement 7
Positioning 7 retracted, that there is no interference of the false folds
Ring/twang 7 in the airflow’ (P3). ‘I would say that open throat and
retraction are the same thing’ (P7).
For six participants (P2, 4, 9, 10, 13, 15), each term
was defined differently, and they described subtle
Table 2b. Specific open throat references as a necessary differences between these terms. Statements gave either
factor to achieve a good sound, ranked by pedagogue positive or negative associations. For example:
frequency of citation Positive statements: ‘Retraction I use because I find
it’s actually a very useful technique when people are
Open throat references % constricted, I can hear false vocal fold interaction very
Ease/freedom 40 clearly . . . open throat is an end product of getting
De-constriction/not constricted/tense 33 something right physiologically . . . it doesn’t have any
Open/open throat 20 meaning outside of the actual physiological basis’
Depth 13 (P2). ‘I think retraction for me would mean false folds
Retraction 13
opening up or open wider, so that there’s a sense of
free emission of sound . . . Space for me, also carries a
physical sensation of stillness, so that it’s not forced in
any way, there’s no laryngeal depression via the base of
first things I teach them’ (P12); ‘The larynx is sitting in
the tongue, or no artificial palate lifting that involve
a slightly lower position . . . basically the larynx is
tension of any of the other articulators’ (P15).
being pulled down by one laryngeal depressor, namely
Negative statement: ‘Open throat is the beginning of
the sternothyroid’ which ‘maximizes pharyngeal a yawn, relaxed, slightly soft back of the tongue,
depth’ (P10). ‘‘high-ish’’ palate, wide pharynx. Throat widening
An additional two participants mentioned primal might be slightly less relaxed and it might make me
sound in their account of achieving good sound. This think a little bit about retraction’ (P4).
was later defined as an action containing a component For seven participants (P2, 4, 6, 7, 12, 13, 15), space
of open throat technique. ‘I’ll start with breathing, at the back was perceived to be a different concept to
support, posture and the primal sound’ (P2). ‘Sound is open throat because of the required action of the soft
related to primal expression, people say it’s over the palate in enlarging the space. ‘Space at the back . . . to
top, I say opera starts over the top’ (P14). me means wide pharynx and a high palate . . . open
throat is for me achieved by having a correct inhala-
tion process, which in my terms is a relaxed abdominal
or splat breath’ (P2). ‘Throat widening to me can be
Associations between the four terms
lower than ‘at the back’ . . . [which] I perceive to be in
After the open-ended questions exploring general the soft palate region’ (P13).
concepts of pedagogy, participants were offered four Two participants (P7, 8) defined throat widening as
common terms used in the singing literature and in an external action, and related less to the internal
singing pedagogy: open throat, throat widening, action of open throat. In their pedagogy, it was not
retraction and space at the back, and were asked perceived as a useful term: ‘Throat widening [is not the
‘What do the terms mean to you?’ and ‘How do you same as retraction]; I prefer open throat, because then
feel these terms are related?’ it, for me, indicates that something is being opened

Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 28

172 H. F. Mitchell et al.

from the inside rather than the outside which is where to me in their own language what we’ve just been
I teach people to make space’ (P7). discussing so that we can actually have a point of
Two participants (P9, 10) expressed dissatisfaction reference, so we’re both very clear as to what we’re
with all of the given terms because they were both talking about’ (P15).
potentially misleading: ‘Open throat, I think is a little
bit misleading for some people in that most singers
were raised on the old yawn sigh and the concepts of Sound qualities associated with the terminology
yawning and making space’ (P9).
Participants were asked ‘What sound quality do you
associate with these terms?’ They collectively produced
Preferred terms 18 descriptions that they felt best characterized the
sound when open throat was used. Table 4 identifies
Eight participants favoured one or more of the four
the most common sound terms used. ‘Balanced/
terms in their teaching. The other seven gave a
coordinated’ was the most important quality, named
different term. Table 3 presents the use of preferred
by 14 of 15 teachers (93%). ‘Free’, ‘open’, ‘even/
terminology.
consistent’ and ‘warm’ were each nominated by over
New terms were given as (i) replacements for the
50% of pedagogues as the sound quality intrinsic to
four given terms, or (ii) as better descriptors of similar
the use of some form of open throat.
concepts; or (iii) as descriptors of new vocal pedagogy
Fourteen participants (93%) said that using open
believed to incorporate the same pedagogical goal.
throat made the entire sound more balanced or
Four participants (P8, 9, 11, 13) favoured the use of
coordinated. They explained that using open throat
the words free, freedom or freedom of tone.
achieved: ‘a much better range of harmonics and
‘I wouldn’t say I want an open throat . . . I would
obviously from that, the formants’ (P3); ‘a resonating
say I want a free sound’ (P11). ‘A free sound, a
spectrum [in which] frequencies balance quite beauti-
freedom of sound but the beginnings of what we call a
fully’ (P15).
trained voice sound’ (P13).
Eight pedagogues (53%) felt that the use of open
‘Collar’ and ‘depth’ were discussed by four partici-
throat made the overall sound more even or consis-
pants (P2, 9, 10, 15) and described as similar to, or
tent: ‘If I told them to laugh, I was going to get a more
replacements for, open throat. For one, the concept
efficient result and a more effective sound, therefore a
of collar is intrinsically related to the function of
rounder, bigger, more even, more secure, more stable,
retraction or open throat. ‘I teach [retraction] as a
more confident production of sound’ (P1).
fundamental of singing by getting the engagement of
Five pedagogues (P1, 2, 3, 7, 12) described healthy,
the collar . . . the collar is both a postural and
safe sound and then associated this with terms like
a physiological function’ (P2).
clear, clean and free: ‘The sound is clean . . . the sound
For two participants (P10, 15), open throat was the
has no interference’ (P7). ‘The timbre changes when
achievement of pharyngeal depth in classical singing.
retraction is achieved, and the voice sounds much
It was also directly compared to the technique ‘collar’:
healthier, clearer, cleaner’ (P12).
‘[The term collar], I’d call it low larynx or pharyngeal
depth’ (P10). ‘There is also a sense of laryngeal
lowering so that there feels like a great depth in the
vocal tract’ (P15). Required technique to achieve the sound quality
Three of the participants (P2, 10, 15) would not use In response to the questions ‘Suppose I were a new
a specific term in teaching but rather preferred to use student */how would you tell me about some of these
the students’ own language to describe their sensation terms?’ and ‘How would you teach me these techni-
after teaching them the technique: ‘I would look for as ques?’ six pedagogues used some form of laugh and
many synonyms as possible to describe the same thing, five used cry or sob. A pre-yawn or start of a yawn was
and then I would probably ask a person to feed back mentioned by three, and focus by two. Three pedago-

Table 3. Terms favoured by each pedagogue as descriptors for open throat

Favoured term Open throat Retraction Open throat or retraction New

interchangeably

Pedagogues 5, 6, 14 3, 7, 12 1, 2 4, 8, 9, 10, 11, 13, 15

% 20 20 13 47

Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 28

 Defining open throat 173

Table 4. Sound qualities associated with open throat. Pedagogues’ individual choices indicated by I

Pedagogue 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 %

Balanced/coordinated I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 93
Free I I I I I I I I I I 67
Open I I I I I I I I 53
Even/consistent I I I I I I I I 53
Warm I I I I I I I I 53
With space I I I I I I I I 40
Healthy/safe I I I I I 33
Round I I I I I 33
Overtones/formants I I I I I 33
Easy/flexible I I I I I 33
Clear I I I I 27
Full I I I 20
Efficient I I I 20
With depth I I I I 20
Clean I I I 20
Sexy/juicy/lusty I I 13
Natural voice I I 13
Relaxed I 7

gues addressed the technique only through teaching
breathing. These are summarized in Table 5.
Nine pedagogues (P1, 2, 3, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12)
believed that the action of open throat was
fundamental to the consistent production of good
sound. It was an important technique to maintain and
monitor throughout singing: ‘Otherwise you start to
use all the muscles that you shouldn’t deliberately be
using’ (P5). ‘It enables the mechanism to work
efficiently at source, so that you get a good sound
signal’ (P7). ‘It’s very much concerned with freedom
and the idea of just opening up and letting the sound
flow’ (P8). ‘Basically after [freedom], you’re adjusting
resonances’ (P11).
Five pedagogues (P2, 7, 8, 9, 13) believed that open
throat needed to become automatic. They stated that
this was possible once a student had mastered
the action: ‘Yes, it’s there all the time when you’ve
got it */it becomes part and parcel of your normal way
of singing. But it’s part of the breathing and support
function’ (P2). ‘There has to be a portion of the
concentration monitoring, until it becomes natural . . .
every time they open their mouths, they know it’s
going to happen’ (P13). ‘It is one of those things that a
student can become able to do automatically and
therefore it goes into the muscular memory and
it’s something that once you’ve experienced, you might
only monitor when you notice that it’s not happening’
(P7).
One pedagogue (P11) highlighted the problem of
actually learning to achieve the action of freedom
consistently: ‘It seems to me that you actually have to
have exercises that maintain that sensation, you can’t
just identify it and say that’s what’s happening’ (P11).
For two pedagogues (P6, 8), open throat was valued
as a tool that demanded more concentration in certain
ranges of the voice and particularly singing through
the passaggio: ‘I would say, particularly as one is going
into the passaggio . . . it helps people to have that
feeling of space at the back of the throat, and almost a
sensation of the voice going backwards’ (P6).
In the singing studio, three participants (P1, 8, 12)
said that it was a technique they regarded as important
to consider every time they taught: ‘[Retraction] is
something I teach every day. And with every student,
no matter how advanced’ (P1). ‘I use it all the time. I
think it’s like second nature . . . if I weren’t retracting,
I’d be constricting’ (P12).
Two participants (P4, 9) regarded open throat and
the teaching of it as a prescriptive tool or as a
technique to visit only when constriction was causing
a problem. They advocated addressing constriction
in other ways rather than discussing open throat:
‘[Open throat] isn’t an integral concept I consciously
and consistently consider . . . so on a needs basis.

Table 5. Pedagogical views on techniques to achieve open throat

Technique Laugh Cry or sob Yawn (start/pre) Focus Flow of breath Inhalation

Pedagogues 1, 3, 7, 9, 12, 15 1, 2, 9, 10, 15 2, 4, 9 5, 6 13, 14 8

% 40 33 20 13 13 7

Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 28

174 H. F. Mitchell et al.
I don’t necessarily talk about open throat that much
. . . it’s not fundamental’ (P4). ‘[I use open throat] as
and when it matters. Some people have very little
constriction . . . often, if their breath is in place and if
that is buoyant enough, that takes care of a lot of
constriction anyway’ (P9).
Relationships between terms, actions and sound
qualities
Thirteen participants (80%) made a connection be-
tween breath or breathing-in and the concept of an
open throat. For eight participants, it was linked with
the inhalation process (P1, 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 12, 15): ‘Open
throat . . . is for me achieved by having a correct
inhalation process . . . it’s a recoil diaphragmatic
breath’ (P2). ‘We want to maximize resonance and
freedom, maintaining that posture of inhalation’ (P8).
‘It’s a physical feeling that you get on inhalation and
that you maintain until the end of the phrase’ (P10).
‘I think space is initiated with inhalation’ (P15).
Similarly, seven participants (P1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15)
indicated that they would actively use the technique to
prepare for producing a note and linked it to the
inhalation process: ‘I would use it in association with
breath and taking breath because those two activities
are combined’ (P9). ‘You set it up with the intake of
breath.’ (P12).
For four participants (P5, 7, 13, 14), it was an action
connected with the flow of breath and the continua-
tion of the breath throughout the phrase: ‘So there is
this lovely column of sound between the focus point
and the support in the voice’ (P5). ‘I talk more about
energizing the breath, energizing the voice, keeping the
tone consistent, working to the end of the phrase’
(P13). ‘It is to do with the flow of breath. If I can
perceive that the flow of breath is neither squeezed nor
dissipated . . . then generally the throat is open’ (P14).
Instructions to achieve an open throat included
actions to maximize space. Two participants (P2, 9)
used a pre-yawn or pre-yawn sigh to describe this to
students: ‘Sometimes I add instructions to maximize
the vocal tract by using, for example, the roar of a lion,
to feel how big those spaces can be and the yawn-sigh
effect, the pre-yawn sigh, I call it of allowing the sound
to come out without constricting the walls of the
pharynx’ (P2).
The technique of laugh was consistently linked to
the term retraction: ‘I use the device of laughter
because I know that that brings about the physical
action [of retraction]’ (P3). ‘[I would teach retraction]
via silent laughing, but I also use achieving a silent in
and out breath, so basically silent inspiration and
expiration . . . it’s a position and it’s a muscular
Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 28
activity. What happens with the breath in terms of
airflow for instance happens as a result of it’ (P7).
For three participants (P1, 9, 15), laugh and cry or
sob produced a subtle change to the sound quality:
‘a different colour’ (P1), ‘richer’ (P9) and a ‘different
harmonic readout within the tone’ (P15). ‘The other
way to open the throat is to cry in tune... on the
laughing basis, but I want to change the colour in the
sound. So I’m doing that for an aesthetic colour’ (P1).
Seven participants (P1, 2, 7, 8, 9, 10, 15) sponta-
neously commented on the value of open throat in
classical singing. It was considered (i) as a necessary
technique for making a classical sound and (ii) a
quality in the sound itself.
Classical technique: ‘Requires a degree of work
taking place in the larynx, and so therefore you need
to have the retracted position, the open throat, in
order to make it safe’ (P7). ‘The aim for classical is to
have the greatest sense of freedom involved, and
freedom with the laryngeal tract, or the vocal tract,
happens to occur with space-making.’ (P15)
Classical sound quality: ‘I think the Italian articu-
latory system sets up an open throat, and western
classical singing came from that . . . [open throat] is the
difference between a national sound and an interna-
tional sound’ (P2). ‘I think that [open throat] not only
improves but in terms of classical singing, it fines the
quality that one requires if you want to be a classical
singer’ (P8). ‘It probably contributes acoustically to
the sound that is most satisfying in that particular
musical style’ (P9). ‘With depth, I will hear basically a
warmer, more classical sound’ (P10).
Physical sensations and presumed physiology associated
with the terminology
The physical action of open throat was conceptualized
by participants in two ways: in terms of anatomy or
physiology, and/or as a physical sensation.
Table 6 presents the anatomical and physiological
concepts mentioned in response to the question: ‘In
terms of physiology, which muscles would you expect
to be working, that is to say, what happens when you
use open throat?’
Eight participants consistently mentioned a pre-
sumed ‘abduction’ or retraction of the false vocal folds
or ventricular folds which they linked to the term
retraction. Participants who referred to false vocal fold
movement reported seeing the action on endoscopy.
‘The false folds are retracted and there is no inter-
ference of the false folds in the airflow or indeed that
the false folds are not in any way pressing on the true
vocal folds’ (P3). ‘What I have noticed, when I look at
people under endoscopy and stroboscopy, is that when
the ventricular bands are retracted the true vocal folds

have a much more symmetrical mucosal wave, and so
they behave much more efficiently and you hear that
efficiency in the purity of the tone’ (P12).
Seven participants stated that pharyngeal space was
involved in the technique they used: ‘[In retraction],
there is some lowering [of the larynx] and I think
there’s some widening of the larger spaces in the
laryngeal part of the pharynx’ (P2). ‘Open throat to
me is optimizing; perhaps all your pharyngeal space,
and that might involve a slight lowering of the larynx’
(P4). ‘I think it has more to do with pharyngeal depth
than it is to do with widening. Because as the larynx
descends, it comes slightly forward in the neck and if
you have a high, wide tongue position that’s slightly
further forward and you actually gain more pharyn-
geal depth as well as pharyngeal length’ (P10).
Six participants mentioned larynx lowering or the
use of sternothyroid as having an effect on open throat
or pharyngeal space: ‘I think that there has to be an
absence of the glossus muscles, that the muscles that
push down on the larynx from above are a hindrance
in getting an open throat. Sternothyroid, the true
depressor of the larynx, which actually functions
physiologically from below is much more valuable’
(P2). ‘I expect that there is a little bit of thyroid tilt, so
that the muscles involved in the thyroid tilting
mechanism are going to be involved [in retraction]’
(P3). ‘I would say the oropharynx or the middle
constrictor region, certainly tongue muscles, the
thyrohyoid, maybe sternothyroid as well would all
work as a unit to allow laryngeal lowering. Certainly
you are looking for a slackness in the muscles above
the larynx’ (P15).
Five participants (P2, 3, 7, 11, 12) commented that
there was not adequate research, and they could not
be completely sure what muscles were used or affected
by the action of open throat: ‘I can’t tell you that
really. I think that the research has just not been done’
(P2). ‘This is one of the things that needs more
Table 6. Pedagogues’ perceptions on anatomical and structures involved when using open throat
Structure False vocal folds Pharynx
Pedagogues 1, 2, 3, 7, 11, 12, 13, 15 1, 2, 4, 8, 9, 10, 15
% 53 47
Table 7. Pedagogues’ report of perceived sensation when they used open throat
Sensation Internally at laryngeal level Externally at laryngeal level
Pedagogues 1, 2, 3 3, 7, 10, 12
% 20 27
Defining open throat 175
research, we don’t absolutely know what happens
when you retract’ (P12).
Table 7 presents data on sensations associated with
the use of this technique. Participants described the
sensation they had or tried to achieve when they used
open throat. They named three locations of sensation
they associated with this technique: (i) internally
at laryngeal level; (ii) externally at laryngeal level;
and (iii) in the oropharynx and laryngopharynx. Table
8 presents the participants’ responses to the questions
of associated physical sensations when using open
throat.
Three participants described an internal sensation
at laryngeal level and specifically linked this to the
action of retraction: ‘[You feel] a widening . . . right at
the laryngeal area itself and also it feels much wider
behind the epiglottis and down in the pharynx itself’
(P1). ‘You feel it right inside the vocal mechanism. It
may just be that I’ve got a good imagination, but I feel
the giggle or the sob has got a very subtle, very internal
manoeuvre’ (P2).
For four participants, the action was felt externally
at laryngeal level. It was also visible in the movement
of the thyroid cartilage: ‘You can actually feel it
around the sides of the thyroid cartilage, because if
you’re widening on the inside there, then you do
actually get a widening [on the outside]. So you can
feel the effects of the retraction*/you can’t feel the
false vocal folds from outside’ (P7).
One participant (P10) was more explicit about this
external action, and linked it to vertical movement of
the larynx: ‘I feel it in the base of my neck . . . which is
actually sternothyroid having to kick in to pull the
larynx low enough so that you can get a thick enough
edge of vocal fold together for a slower vibratory rate’
(P10).
Six participants explained that the action of open
throat was felt throughout the oropharynx and
laryngopharynx: ‘One feels a kind of opening and a
Sterno-thyroid Larynx lowering Other structure
2, 10, 12, 15 2, 3, 4, 10, 15 7
27 33 7
In oropharynx and laryngopharynx
4, 6, 8, 9, 11, 15
40
Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 28
176 H. F. Mitchell et al.
Table 8. Pedagogues’ view on degree to which open throat was voluntary, involuntary, could be isolated or was part of
a coordinated action
Control Voluntary
Pedagogues 1, 2, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15
% 87
rising feeling at the back of the throat’ (P6). ‘[The
sensation] is all about pharyngeal muscles’ (P8).
‘Mainly, the sensation is within the throat region’
(P15).
Table 8 presents responses to the questions ‘Do you
think it is possible to have voluntary control of
muscles responsible for open throat, throat widening,
retraction and space at the back?’ and ‘Do you believe
it is possible to isolate and control the muscles used in
open throat, throat widening, retraction and space at
the back?’
Thirteen participants (87%) considered that it was
possible to have voluntary control of the action of
open throat: ‘Conscious control of constriction or
retraction, nothing’s new really... my experience is that
of course it is’ (P11). ‘I certainly think you have
voluntary control of open throat, in that you can
optimize space’ (P4). ‘I think there is, up to a point,
voluntary control’ (P6). ‘It can take a long time, but
yes, you can.’ (P10). ‘I think to a certain extent... I
don’t know how efficiently [the muscles] work to
sustain that. I think you can generate a response,
particularly on the point of inhalation, but I’m sure
that there are postural considerations such as head
and neck alignment that help to maintain that
positioning’ (P9).
Two participants considered open throat as part of a
greater whole of singing technique, rather than a single
action: ‘The muscles controlling the larynx work of
their own accord’ (P5). ‘If a singer thought that they
had to have voluntary control every time they went out
on stage, they’d be in a mess. No they don’t have
voluntary control, but you do it, you get to the point
where... once you put the message into the subcon-
scious, it becomes habitual and then we just do it’ (P8).
Seven participants believed that is was possible to
isolate and control the action. These comments were
specific to retraction: ‘I’m primarily looking for the
isolation simply of getting the false folds retracted so
that we have a de-constricted space at vocal fold level’
(P3). ‘Yes, I believe so, it has certainly been my
experience’ (P7). ‘I feel as though you can [isolate]. I
don’t know that I can actually control that, it may be
something else that’s moving’ (P9). ‘[Isolation] defi-
nitely, yes. However, I don’t know if anyone could
feedback accurately exactly what muscles they were
working with at any given point in time’ (P15).
Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 28
Involuntary Isolated action Coordinated action
5, 8 2, 3, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12 4, 5, 6, 13, 15
13 47 33
Five participants believed that isolation of open
throat was not possible and that the action was a
component of a larger action or gesture in singing: ‘[A
whole motion] would certainly be my approach, rather
than trying to isolate elements’ (P6). ‘I don’t think you
can isolate one little thing. It’s part of a bigger picture,
and I think sometimes, when you try to isolate bits, it
can become too compartmentalized and a student
actually ends up thinking about bits and forgets about
singing’ (P13). ‘I don’t think that one can take one
muscle and say, exercise it, for example. They all work
in a greater union’ (P15).
DISCUSSION
The majority of participants interviewed for this study
agreed that open throat was essential to good singing
and more specifically to classical singing. Specific
sound qualities in good singing were identified and
some were linked directly to open throat technique.
Participants acknowledged the complex nature of
interdependent techniques needed in good singing.
Good breathing, balance or coordination, and free-
dom or ease of sound were considered essential to the
production of a good sound in singing. These concepts
have often been linked in the literature; for example,
Miller (24) believed that freedom in sustained singing
is produced by balanced breathing.
With respect to terminology regarding open throat,
open throat and retraction were preferred, from the
given terms, to describe the phenomenon. Other terms
such as freedom, collar and depth were suggested as
better terms. Individual participants preferred one of
these terms to describe their concept of open throat,
although some used terms interchangeably. Reasons
for preferences given include: clarity of meaning;
preference for a specific pedagogy’s terminology; or
reference to the type of action used to achieve the
technique.
Different pedagogues preferred different terminolo-
gies: the descriptors used reflected preferences to
current and historical singing pedagogy or pedago-
gues. For example, Miller (24) referred to open throat,
Estill referred to retraction (16) and Chapman to
collar, and the use of these terms were reflected in the
comments of this sample. However, the sound quali-
ties associated with all these terms were very similar.

Singing teachers associated open throat with both a
sound quality that was characterized by freedom,
warmth and openness and an action that produced
balance, coordination, evenness and consistency. The
terms related to vocal quality such as ‘warm’, ‘full’ or
‘round’, as well as the functional terms such as ‘easy’
or ‘clean’, were used interchangeably by participants
in this study. The use of function and quality
descriptors was addressed in Wapnick and Ekholm
(26), who found that there were differing preferences
for use of quality or function terms. Although experts
tended towards one category of descriptor, the high
correlations of all descriptors suggest that sound
quality and function are a unitary concept in evaluat-
ing good sound. The participants in this study did not
separate these types of terms and seemed comfortable
with their use in the studio.
Participants in this sample demonstrated an under-
standing and interest in anatomical and physiological
relationships between sound quality and technique,
citing presumed muscle action such as ventricular fold
abduction or pharyngeal widening and associated
physical sensations. Most considered it feasible to
have voluntary control over the action of open throat,
but did not achieve consensus over the ability to
isolate the action from good singing technique. The
techniques used by participants in this sample in-
volved laughing, crying, conscious maintenance of
inhalation postures and (pre-) yawn. Scientific inves-
tigations related to each of these vocal actions provide
interesting hypotheses for what may happen physiolo-
gically when participants teach open throat technique
(25, 35
/9).
Laughing is advocated by pedagogues such as Estill
(16) and Miller (24) as a fundamental tool in each
pedagogical style for (i) the achievement of false vocal
fold retraction and (ii) for the balance of onset and
release respectively. The majority of those who advo-
cated false vocal fold retraction (ventricular fold
abduction) said that isolation of this action was
possible. This view is consistent with Estill (16, 25)
who recommends independent control of components
of the vocal mechanism. It is important to note that
no studies have been published providing evidence of
voluntary control of movement of the ventricular folds
laterally away from the midline. Current thinking is
divided as to whether retraction (25) occurs in open
throat and if there is a response to an instruction to
‘retract your ventricular folds’ or ‘retract’ from a rest
position.
Participants who used laugh as a technique did so to
achieve retraction. Although the use of this term has
been absorbed into singing pedagogy, it lacks anato-
mical validity. The anatomical term ‘abduction’ refers
to a lateral movement away from the body midline
Defining open throat 177
with the opposite term, ‘adduction’ referring to a
lateral movement towards the body midline. The term
abduction appears to be the movement that some
pedagogues referred to as retraction which is not
usually used anatomically in that sense. However, the
use of the term retraction by the participants inter-
viewed here clearly meant more than a relaxation to a
rest position from a constricted vocal pattern; it also
implied a lateral movement away from the approxima-
tion to the midline. What is not known is whether
there is any voluntary control of the lateral position of
the ventricular folds as advocated by Estill. Those
participants who used the term and technique of
retraction did so to reduce constriction or tension to
achieve a healthier sound quality as well as to achieve
a specific sound quality.
Physiologically, abduction of the ventricular folds
presents a puzzle as they are ‘incapable of becoming
tense’ (40, p. 117). Histological reports have described
a rostral extension of the thyroarytenoid muscle up to
13 mm above the glottis, which at the level of the
ventricle, 2
/3 mm above the glottis, lies lateral to it,
and at this level it is referred to as the ventricular
muscle (41). The thyroarytenoid muscle is an adductor
of the vocal folds, and will have the same action on the
ventricular folds and so cannot be responsible for
abduction of the ventricular folds. There is voluntary
control over constriction of the ventricular and vocal
folds with adduction of the ventricular folds, and
changes in the vocal vibratory waveform are observed
in strained/tense and also in pressed phonation.
Reduced tension of the larynx and a degree of
expansion in the laryngeal ventricle was reported in
‘covered singing’, a technique used when singing
through the passaggio (42).
Changes in the lateral position of the ventricular
folds may alter the shape and position of the ventricle,
which could be responsible for other resonator char-
acteristics or even the vibratory pattern of the vocal
folds. In studies of specific vocal register by Welch
et al .(38), they found that male falsettists demon-
strated a systematic increase in pharyngeal and
ventricular area as well as shape and position of the
laryngeal ventricle across a series of octaves. They
suggested that darkening or covering was achieved
while still maintaining ‘singer’s formant’, by opening
the ventricular space and lowering the larynx. Refer-
ence to the ventricle and its perceived role in singing
were made by the Bel Canto school, and interpreted in
the twentieth century by practitioners such as Manén
(19) to include direct reference to the ventricular folds,
and she concluded that they are altered in length and
width, which directly affected the ventricle of Mor-
gagni and produced the ‘specific timbres of Bel Canto’
(19, p. 34).
Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 28
178 H. F. Mitchell et al.
However, it is not yet established whether the
opening of the ventricular space and lowering the
larynx is influenced by instruction and adjustments
made for the technique of open throat. Sundberg (39)
proposed that the observed distinctive high-energy
spectrum in singer’s formant is present when a specific
size relationship occurs between the diameter of the
pharynx and the opening of a narrowed laryngeal
inlet or tube (size ratio pharynx to larynx opening
areas /6:1), which is more likely to occur when the
larynx is lowered. Participants in this study did not
specifically link the use of an open throat with ‘ring’,
terms which have previously been linked (43),
although they did suggest it facilitated a better balance
or more desirable distribution of harmonics.
Some participants in this sample advocated cry as
an instruction and discussed larynx lowering as an
action in open throat. Certain participants speculated
that the contraction of the sternothyroid muscle might
influence space created in the pharynx, larynx low-
ering or other associated movements in the vocal
mechanism. There is some support for this hypothesis.
Sternothyroid contraction is believed to influence the
thickening of the vocal folds in low pitches, but it is
uncertain as to its effect on higher pitches in trained
singers (44). The sternothyroid muscle attaches to
the thyroid cartilage, and it is possible that on short-
ening, it makes some impact on the vocal fold
configuration. Roubeau et al. (44) found that the
activity of the strap muscles, including the sternothyr-
oid, varied according to fundamental frequency, with
most activity occurring at the extremes of range. Hong
et al . (10, 45) concurred that the strap muscles did
affect fundamental frequency through the mechanism
of laryngotracheal pulling or bending. These studies
support the views of the participants’ interviewed that
contraction of the sternothyroid muscle has some
effect on the laryngeal configuration.
Vilkman et al. (46) agreed that changes to the
vertical position of the larynx had effects not only on
fundamental frequency but also may contribute to
abduction and adduction functions within the larynx.
This supports the benefits of lowered larynx as used in
classical singing. Shipp (47) determined that thyro-
hyoid and sternothyroid muscles were responsible for
subjects’ vertical laryngeal positioning while singing,
which matches the participants’ beliefs of laryngeal
control and manipulation.
Pedagogical methods linking breath, or the intake
of breath, was deemed by pedagogues in this sample to
be vital in the production of open throat, and achieved
using a variety of images or gestures in order to locate
a sound quality and sense of space or freedom (5).
Sonninen’s (48) pioneering study into external laryn-
geal frame musculature supported this pedagogical
Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 28
theory, and identified anterior and inferior displace-
ment of the thyroid cartilage by sternothyroid and
tracheal exertion via inhalation, which may account
for vibratory changes in the vocal folds and acoustic
changes in fundamental frequency.
Many participants in this sample talked about
widening of the pharynx or a sensation of space
within the pharynx. They also associated this with
breath, and an action initiated through inhalation.
Anatomically, there is evidence that the pharynx can
widen or lengthen during singing. The pharynx is
comprised of three constrictors so, anatomically, only
lengthening of the vocal tract, or protrusion of the
tongue, should enlarge the pharyngeal resonator. The
yawn/yawn-sigh has been used to encourage open
throat, but has been questioned as a tool for achieving
it, as it may add unnecessary tensions (24). Pre-yawn
or yawn-sigh was named in this study as other
pedagogical devices to achieve open throat. Boone
and McFarlane (49) studied the yawn-sigh under naso-
endoscopy and identified characteristic lowered larynx
and widened pharynx across subjects, as well as
retracted elevation of the tongue which supports the
participants’ application of yawn or pre-yawn to
enlarge the pharyngeal resonator. Acoustically, this
yawn-sigh produced lower second and third formants.
The notion of pharyngeal size and its impact on the
increased intensity in sound was reported by the
participants interviewed in this study. Sonninen et al .
(50) investigated the size of the pharynx during open
and covered singing, in loud and quiet examples, and
proposed that the lower pharynx was in fact narrower
during the loud covered condition than in the open
condition. However, it is qualified by its restriction to
the low level of pharynx area studied. Although
pedagogues here referred to wide pharynx, they also
quantified depth via laryngeal lowering as important
to open throat. The narrowing of epiglottal area, and
its role in the production of singer’s formant is
investigated by Titze (9), who proposed the benefits
of adopting a wide pharynx, to achieve a lower first
formant to enhance the sound, and increase the
singer’s formant with a narrowed laryngeal inlet or
tube (39).
Recent studies (10, 36) investigated various voice
qualities including the ‘yawny’ voice quality and
concluded that this vocal tract manipulation resulted
in a distinctive increase in vocal tract volume, through
lengthening the vocal tract and widening the oral
cavity, which resulted acoustically in a closer grouping
of the first two formants. These findings confirm
pedagogical statements in this study related to the
perceived impact of the use of the sob/cry/yawn
manipulations to achieve greater space and lower the
larynx, but do not investigate the concept of tension.

Studies of control of different sound qualities,
focusing on different vocal genres have identified
different vocal ‘postures’ in singing (35, 37). Physio-
logical movements were different across singing styles
and were believed to account for changes to the sound
quality. When the vocal tract was compared across a
single singer, operatic technique versus belting techni-
que elicited a lower larynx, wider larynx tube and
more separated ventricular folds. Interestingly, the
instruction to change the sound quality produced the
physiological variations.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study assessed the use of language about sound
quality associated with the technique of open throat.
Although the 15 participants offered 18 terms to
describe sound quality, clear associations or simila-
rities in their usage and application were apparent.
This study advances previous work in clarifying
terminology related to open throat (51, 52). Commu-
nication of techniques in singing pedagogy can be
improved by attempts to inform the use of terminol-
ogy. Consensus of pedagogues is displayed in the
evaluations of singing performance (33), although the
way in which pedagogues interpret a sound is often
difficult to define verbally.
It also expands Wapnick and Ekholms’ (26)
attempts at matching pedagogical evaluation with
perceptual descriptors. Singing pedagogues rely on
their perceptions of sound qualities to determine the
physiological processes at work in the production of
the sound quality. The human ear must complement
acoustical study in integrating the complex dimensions
of the human voice. Language in singing pedagogy,
despite Seashore’s (2) ideals, is destined to remain
subjective. However, in order to spread information
more effectively, we would make the following recom-
mendations:
1. Singing pedagogy and voice research need to
become more integrated. De-constriction is a
more anatomically correct term than retraction.
This would help to convey meaning more effec-
tively between science and art.
2. Qualitative research is a useful tool for the
generation of research questions and elucidation
of study related to the voice, in particular, to the
sound quality.
3. Subsequent research needs to establish the asso-
ciated characteristics of open throat and the
perceptual quality accompanying this technique
(26, 27).
4. In this study, open throat was considered impor-
tant in current pedagogy. Pedagogues were aware
Defining open throat 179
of the technique’s value as well as the need to
tailor their terminology and instructions in the
singing studio to each student’s vocal needs and
learning styles.
REFERENCES
1. Jorgenson D. A History of Conflict. NATS Bulletin
1980; 36: 31
/5.
2. Seashore CE. Psychology of Music. New York and
London: McGraw-Hill Book Company; 1938.
3. Bartholomew W. A physical definition of ‘‘good voice
quality’’ in the male voice. J Acoust Soc Am 1934; 6:
25
/33.
4. Tosi PF. Opinioni de’cantori antichi, e moderni, o sieno
Osservazioni sopra il canto figurato 2nd edn. London:J
Wilcox: 1743
5. Puritz E. The teaching of Elisabeth Schumann. London:
Methuen; 1956.
6. Herbert-Caesari EF. The voice of the mind. London:
Robert Hale; 1951.
7. Agricola JF. In: Julianne C Baird (ed.). Introduction to
the art of singing; translated. Cambridge: Cambridge
University Press; 1995.
8. Vennard W. Singing: the mechanism and the technic, 5th
edn. New York: Fischer; 1968.
9. Titze I. Voice Research: The Wide Pharynx. Journal of
Singing 1998; 55: 27
/8.
10. Titze IR, Story BH. Acoustic interactions of the voice
source with the lower vocal tract. J Acoust Soc Am
1997; 101: 2234
/43.
11. Joiner JR. Charles Amable Battaille: pioneer in vocal
science and the teaching of singing. Lanham (Md):
Scarecrow Press; 1998.
12. Ware C. Basics of vocal pedagogy: the foundations and
process of singing. New York: McGraw-Hill; 1998.
13. Marafioti PM. Caruso’s Method of Voice Production.
New York: Dover Publications; 1981.
14. McKinney JC. The Diagnosis and Correction of Vocal
Faults. Nashville, Tennessee: Broadman Press; 1982.
15. Reid CL. A dictionary of vocal terminology: an analysis.
New York: Joseph Patelson Music House; 1983.
16. Estill J. Primer of Basic Figures, 2nd edn. Santa Rosa:
Estill Voice Training Systems; 1996.
17. Miller R. On the art of singing. New York: Oxford
University Press; 1996.
18. Hemsley T. Singing and imagination: a human approach
to a great musical tradition. Oxford and New York:
Oxford University Press; 1998.
19. Manen L. Bel canto: the teaching of the classical Italian
song-schools its decline and restoration. Oxford: Oxford
University Press; 1987.
20. Potter J. Vocal authority: singing style and ideology.
New York: Cambridge University Press; 1998.
21. Garcia M. Hints on singing, New and revised edition.
London: Ascherberg, Hopwood and Crew; 1894.
22. Shakespeare W. The art of singing: based on the
principles of the old Italian singing masters, and dealing
with breath-control and production of the voice,
together with exercises, Revised edition. Boston: Oliver
Ditson; 1921.
23. Lehmann L. How to sing, New revised and supplemen-
ted edition translated by Clara Willenbucher. New York:
Dover Publications; 1993.
Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 28
180 H. F. Mitchell et al.
24. Miller R. The structure of singing: system and art in
vocal technique. New York and London: Schirmer
Books; 1996.
25. Citardi MJ, Yanagisawa E, Estill J. Videoendoscopic
analysis of laryngeal function during laughter. Ann Otol
Rhinol Laryngol 1996; 105: 545
/9.
26. Wapnick J, Ekholm E. Expert consensus in solo voice
performance evaluation. J Voice 1997; 11: 429
/36.
27. Ekholm E, Papagiannis GC, Chagnon FP. Relating
objective measurements to expert evaluation of voice
quality in Western classical singing: critical perceptual
parameters. J Voice 1998; 12: 182
/96.
28. Bunch M, Chapman J. Taxonomy of singers used as
subjects in scientific research. J Voice 2000; 14: 363
/9.
29. Patton MQ. Qualitative evaluation and research meth-
ods, 2nd edn. Newbury Park, California: Sage Publica-
tions; 1990.
30. Smith JA. Semi-Structured Interviewing and Qualitative
Analysis. In: Langenhove LV (ed.). Rethinking Methods
in Psychology. London: Sage Publications; 1995. pp. 9
/26.
31. Mathieson CM, Barrie CM. Probing the Prime Narra-
tive: Illness, Interviewing, and Identity. Qual Health Res
1998; 8: 581
/601.
32. Miles MB, Huberman MA. Qualitative Data Analysis:
An Expanded Sourcebook. California: Sage Publica-
tions Ltd; 1994.
33. Davidson JW, Coimbra D. Investigating performance
evaluation by assessors of singers in a music college
setting. Musicae Scientiae 2001; 5: 33
/53.
34. Kokotsaki D, Davidson JW, Coimbra D. Investigating
the Assessment of Singers in a Music College Setting:
The Students’ Perspective. Research Studies in Music
Education 2001; 16: 15
/32.
35. Lovetri J, Lesh S, Woo P. Preliminary Study on the Ability
of Trained Singers to Control the Intrinsic and Extrinsic
Laryngeal Musculature. J Voice 1999; 13: 219
/26.
36. Story BH, Titze IR, Hoffman EA. The relationship of
vocal tract shape to three voice qualities. J Acoust Soc
Am 2001; 109: 1651
/67.
37. Sundberg J, Gramming P, Lovetri J. Comparisons of
Pharynx, source, formant, and Pressure Characteristics
in Operatic and Musical Theatre Singing. J Voice 1993;
7: 301
/10.
Logoped Phoniatr Vocol 28
38. Welch GF, Sergeant DC, MacCurtain F. Some Physical
Characteristics of the Male Falsetto Voice. J Voice 1989;
2: 151
/63.
39. Sundberg J. Articulatory interpretation of the ‘‘singing
formant’’. J Acoust Soc Am 1974; 55: 838
/44.
40. Zemlin WR. Speech and Hearing Science: Anatomy and
Physiology, 4th edn. Boston: Allyn and Bacon; 1998.
41. Hirano MS. K. Histological Color Atlas of the Human
Larynx. San Diego: Singular Publishing Group; 1993.
42. Hertegard S, Gauffin J, Sundberg J. Open and Covered
Singing as Studied by Means of Fiberoptics, Inverse
Filtering, and Spectral Analysis. J Voice 1990; 4: 220
/
30.
43. Acker BF. Vocal Tract Adjustments for the Projected
Voice. J Voice 1987; 1: 77
/82.
44. Roubeau B, Chevrie-Muller C, Lacau Saint Guily J.
Electromyographic activity of strap and cricothyroid
muscles in pitch change. Acta Otolaryngol 1997; 117:
459
/64.
45. Hong KH, Ye M, Kim YM, Kevorkian KF, Berke GS.
The role of strap muscles in phonation */in vivo canine
laryngeal model. J Voice 1997; 11: 23
/32.
46. Vilkman E, Sonninen A, Hurme P, Korkko P. External
laryngeal frame function in voice production revisited: a
review. J Voice 1996; 10: 78
/92.
47. Shipp T. Vertical laryngeal position during continuous
and discrete vocal frequency change. J Speech Hear Res
1975; 18: 707
/18.
48. Sonninen A. The external frame function in the control
of pitch in the human voice. Ann NY Acad Sci 1968;
155: 68
/90.
49. Boone DR, McFarlane SC. A critical view of the yawn-
sigh as a voice therapy technique. J Voice 1993; 7: 75
/80.
50. Sonninen A, Hurme P, Laukkanen AM. The external
frame function in the control of pitch, register, and
singing mode: radiographic observations of a female
singer. J Voice 1999; 13: 319
/40.
51. Burgin JC. Teaching singing. Metuchen (NJ): Scarecrow
Press; 1973.
52. Monahan BJ. The art of singing: a compendium of
thoughts on singing published between 1777 and 1927.
Metuchen (NJ): Scarecrow Press; 1978.